All things are quantum probability waves until an observer collapses them – so teaches physics. If there is no observer the universe is just all the possible states, all at once. So before there were people, who or what was observing the universe for it to have a definite state? How can there be any definite history of the universe between the big bang and the appearance of observers? Any definite history sufficient for instance to have definite solid planets, functioning stars and emerging evolving biology so as to give rise to the observers.

Physics requires a priori, an observer, to be anything other than an infinite mush of all possibilities.

So what constitutes an “observer” anyway? A plankton? A bacterium? A monkey? Whatever, no observer could have been around early enough to make the universe probability wave collapse into something that could give rise to that observer – it’s a paradox.

The answer is, of course, God. Oh how predictable those Christians are eh?

Now while you digest that, ponder this:

If a load of heavy stuff in a tiny place makes a black hole from which nothing can escape, how come the expanding big bang, which was ALL the heavy stuff there ever will be and all in a teeny weeny tiny place (to start with) didn’t disappear up its own bottom?

The answer is of course it was expanding fast enough to escape its gravity as it expanded faster than light and there wasn’t yet any space to curve into a hole as it was space itself expanding as it went. It wasn’t going backwards in time despite the expansion going faster than light as the time-space was expanding with the light, so the light was not travelling through space and time, it was travelling with space-time.

All this required an observer to actually be rather than potentially be. The only possible candidate is, as previously noted, God.

Yesterday it was the regular Orionid meteor shower. I was travelling in my car with my wife in the when there was an almighty bang on the roof. We wondered what it could be as the impact was so strong and there where no stones or any way a stone could have come up and hit the roof in that way, there were no nearby vehicles that could have dropped something form above and no birds or trees that could to cause the incredible impact we heard. I stopped to look at the damage fully expecting to see a very large expensive dent in the roof.

What I saw, or more really felt with my fingertip, was a sub-millimeter chip in the outer paint plastic protective layer. Very difficult to photograph but I have just managed it. It is the small off-white dot in the blue paint above my finger (reflected sky clouds are seen in the blue paint of the car roof)

I think this tiny chip in the paintwork was caused by the last gasp impact of a burnt-out meteor from the Orionids. I can only emphasise the incredible force with whatever the tiny particle was that caused this chip. The bang was really loud, my wife was startled and wondered what it was and we were grateful it had not hit the windshield as we felt certain it would have smashed it. It may sound far-fetched to suppose it was a meteorite, but given the time and context, such a quite rare but not unknown event as a meteor striking a car seems the most likely to me.

Space is multi-dimensional, unlike the two-dimensional trees in the brand new district of Cambridge, UK known as Eddington.

Space is expanding because the universe is expanding.

It is expanding away from every point in itself equally like every point on the surface of an inflating balloon. It started at zero size and now it is about 30 billion light years across.

You are such a point. You are on that surface of the space balloon. It is where you are and moving makes no difference as wherever you go it is the same for you. You cannot be on a different place relative to the whole universe because you are in the universe.

Everything is getting further away from you in space.

Now what about time?

It is just another dimension. It is expanding. It started at no seconds and now it is about 15 billion years in duration.

Just as you are at the expanding edge of the universe on space (the point on the balloon that you cannot get off) so you are at the expanding edge of time. Look anywhere and you look back in time. The further away that star is, the longer it took for its light to reach you.

You can only look backwards in space and time. You must travel forwards as the edge of space time expands with you stuck on it. You cannot see the forwards (future) space time as it has not yet been created, you are stuck in the here and now, only able to look back and see and remember the past.

That is the arrow of time. Simple. Easy. A child of five with a toy balloon could get it. Nothing to see here, move along. Little joke there of course. God bless.

Never mind the matrix, if you can get security clearance (you will need a genuine reason like attending some sort of event there) take a walk through the Genome Campus at Hinxton, Cambridge, England.

There are numerous chromed spheres, each slightly tweaked to represent various stages of life. The one with a hole represents the stage at which it becomes apparent that we are coelenterates, a biological taxonomical classification meaning we have a gut that opens at the mouth and exits the other end.

The effect of this tableau of embryonic development is to make the long slopes, interspersed by post-modernist buildings, appear as a giant pinball machine, giving a slightly science-fiction sense of unease that things might just roll down and bowl one over or a huge flipper whack out of the sides.

Oldies like me will remember the blob thing in “The Prisoner” TV series. Well here in Hinxton Big brother definitely is watching and don’t even think what escaped chimera might just be lurking up the next level. Best enjoyed at dusk when it becomes eerily empty.

Reader warning: You are highly unlikely to understand this article unless you have read all my preceding physics articles.

Illustration is just for artistic flavor – copyright rests with the author of this blog.

What is a dimension?

A dimension is a direction that a probability wave can extend along.

It is defined by it’s angular relationship to other dimensions (or tangential relationship if any closed-loop is present) and its closedness.

One dimension is a line. If closed it is a loop, large or small. Two and you have a surface, if closed it is a sphere or a torus.

Hmm, so how does a dimension curve, unless there is another “direction” “above” it, into which it curves in order to loop? What should we call these extra dimensions? There is something to develop.

The wave-crest model of the (“The” – singular) electron is (in previous articles) explained as the amplitude of probability poking above a plane of significance which is the level at which we perceive the electron, and this gives rise to the perceived physical boundary in space that we define as the fuzzy location of this particle. You may remember this is how the particle/wave duality of the electron is resolved – if you read that in one of my earlier articles. The electron is fuzzy because the probability of it (actually its “edge”) being there varies with time (time is another necessary dimension for our perception/ experience/ viability but let’s not go there for now), but perhaps also fuzzy because the level at which significance/perception intersects the wave, truncating off a neat little package of electron, just maybe goes up and down.

We can “remove” some of these “dimensions” from our working memory scratchpad – the ones that don’t have to be “real” “plains” can just be trigger values – but for the sake of elegance and simplicity if might be better to stick with them in our scratchpad, even if it makes mentally juggling the interfaces between so many dimensions difficult. Just keep hold of the idea that these are quite possibly all simply notional directions in which probability waves can extend. This accords best with the understanding that everything is simply a thought spoken by God and held there by His existence.

People continually pose the Trinity as being an unfathomable mystery. At first it is easy to go along with this collective confusion that adds a bit of extra mysticism and atmosphere to the Christian religion. However, I suggest that even a rudimentary understanding of psychology will demystify the Trinity and give us a better understanding of the God who made us. That is surely a much better thing to have than a cloudy consensus of unnecessary ignorance which seems to be there only for the sake of dramatic effect and wriggle room when difficult questions are asked. I don’t feel that the God who created the whole universe really needs such shoddy scenery – He is not the Wizard of Oz and He does not need flimsy curtains to hide behind. The God I know tells it like it is and has laid out most of the answers you are likely to need already in writing in His Bible.

The fundamental thing that I am getting at is given right at the beginning of the Bible. Because it is from the Bible you can be sure of the underlying premise. We are made in God’s image. If God is a Trinity then it is reasonable to suppose that within us you will also find that triune nature reflected.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let themhave dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (KJV)

There is an awful lot in the two passages above. I have highlighted the parts relevant to this blog article that show the man created in Genesis 1:27 is multiple in nature and is in the image of God who is also multiple in nature. Before however I continue with my main theme, which is the triune nature of mankind, I would like to just mention one of the very important other things contained in the passages above. The next time someone suggests that God might be a woman you can point them to Genesis 1:27. Clearly within God are both male and female because as creations made in the image of God, we also have as a species those aspects. God is male, the Spirit, The Son and the Father, yes male, but within them they have the female, and in that image we were created both males and females.

“Some people hate themselves. But if I say, “I hate myself,” who is this “I” that stands apart from “myself”? And notice how in the expression “I am not myself today,” the “I” and “myself” change places. Now it is “myself” who is the authentic, the authoritative, the judgmental “I,” and it is “I” who is the self that is judged and found wanting. Some people talk to themselves; when they do, who is speaking and who is listening?”

So, there you have an educated but non-psychologist’s view of the multiple nature of each of us that probably most people would recognise.

Sigmund Freud was roundly attacked for many years by much of mainstream psychology, especially in the very left-wing universities such as the one where I studied. Freud is now left by mainstream psychology in a backwater of history by most university teaching. When I was studying psychology many years ago the attack on him was in full swing, perpetrated by left-wing liberals, anti-racists and feminists who disliked him because of the attitudes he held. His attitudes were of course completely normal and acceptable in the times and culture – Vienna the late 1880’s – when he did his work. It is nowadays we find objection. His detractors however were so strident and aggressive in their demands for the expulsion of anything that did not fit their ultra-egalitarian view of politics, they chose to throw out the baby with the bathwater rather than recognise that just because a person comes with attitudes we would no longer agree with, they can nevertheless tell some truths. It is as if an evil dictator were to point to a clear blue sky and say the sky is blue and we were to say no the sky is green because we did not like his politics. To do so is arrant nonsense.

Freud posited the Ego, ID and Super-Ego as being the three aspects of mind of which we are comprised. He also posited different drives or motivations such as Libido (sexual) and Thanatos (the death wish) that incline us to different behaviours. In a nutshell, Freud was saying it is as if we have several different minds or personalities, chiefly three. Freud also recognised that the relationships we have with those closest to us have significant effect upon our behaviour. Freud posited syndromes such as the Oedipus complex in his attempt to categorise and explain some of the more prevalent types of unhealthy relationships that may influence us. One can readily accept that Freud’s more developed theories are in many cases probably erroneous or at least very over-stated. However as I have said we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater and lose site of the underlying insights that Freud had.

Notwithstanding the internecine conflicts of psychological endeavour, there are more recent scientific advances that claim to undermine the whole realm of modern talking psychology. The neuropsychology of neuroscience, using machines such as various forms of tomography (eg functional magnetic resonance imaging) can show that different regions of the brain, sometimes different regions simultaneously, are active during different mental states and tasks. Far from supplanting psychology however, I think a more honest appraisal of neuro-psychology is that it validates psychology, and politically annoyingly for many modern thinkers, also validates somewhat the theories of Freud.

It is not unknown that early scientist’s theories are thrown out and ridiculed, only for later science to show they were quite close to the truth, but science does not like to admit its mistakes. In the murky and highly contestable world of evolution we find examples such as Lamarck – look what we now know about epigenetics but no-one is saying “Oh dear sorry” to Lamarck. Then there is Immanuel Velikovsky who said that planets had collided and was poo-pooed. Now we say the moon was a result of a big collision and there are lots of other planetary collisions that are suggested as well, by the same mainstream astronomy that lambasted Velikovsky, called him fraud and sent him into the margins of history from where I doubt you have ever heard of him. Dare we speak of Tesla? The AC current you are using today is his contribution, but you know the name of Edison much better eh? All I am saying here is DO NOT TRUST ORTHODOX SCIENCE – it is as a dishonest and political and hypocritical endeavour as any other. Science will tel you there is no God, but it will sacrifice truth even in its own ranks for less noble ideals, and it will not admit when it is wrong. When I was a kid we were told that Pandas were NOT Bears. Now they are Bears. Whaaaat?!

My original purpose in studying psychology was to understand the nature of consciousness. In that endeavour I felt that I had gone as far as I could at the time when I was studying. I was confident then and still am that consciousness is an emergent process and as such has many components that you might describe as mini–minds. That was some decades ago and science has moved on. Nevertheless all that the march of progress has contributed to understanding the nature all the human mind still points to a very triune nature, annoyingly to some, very much like that which Freud described.

That triune nature of man, unsurprisingly to a Christian, reflects the fact that as Genesis 1:26 reports, we are indeed made in the image of God – a Trinity created and loves us. We are so like God in that aspect, it really should not be hard to understand the Trinity at all.

I wanted a nice soap dish, and came across an item that is not intended as a soap dish but it makes a very good one. Ceramic ginger graters are the perfect size and shape for soap bars, and the spikes mean the soap sticks on the dish once it has dried so you can pick up the whole dish and soap. Take care you don’t drop and break it of course as the ceramic shards would be sharp. You can also use the grater to grate off flakes of soap if you want soapflakes. I purchased mine in John Lewis in the UK, but the link above shows they are easy to find.

NOTICE: I have not been paid any money or given any inducements by any product manufacturer or store to mention the products or stores featured in this blog article.

The great soap experiment continues. Links to some earlier blogs about to here and here and here <– click them

Your intrepid researcher would like you to know he is now “suffering” for soapy science. He is enduring electric shocks to add to the knowledge of the world. <grin>

Occasionally like most people I get static electricity shocks, usually when getting out of my car, and only in certain weather if I am wearing certain clothes or shoes.

Since changing to pure minimum-chemical soaps for all skin and hair washing activities and Dead Sea salts for bathing I have been getting ridiculous amounts of shocks off all kinds of objects. My watch also stopped – it is less that two months old and had a new battery in it.

So I am now beginning to think that I have changed the electrical properties of my skin – probably its conductivity.

I had wondered what the long-term effects, possibly ill, of SLS and similar on the skin might be. Especially I had thought that maybe any ill effects might be unexpected and non-obvious, as well as possibly more obvious. Changing the electrical properties of the body, in any way, is certainly nothing I had imagined. It goes to show however that there may indeed be some unconsidered and potentially (little pun there) far-reaching side effects from these almost ubiquitous surfactant chemicals that we may want to question deeply. I have no idea what the changing electrical properties of my body are, or in what way they are being changed – whether it is just something trivial or whether there are more subtle and profound effects. I do know our nerve impulses and brain are electrochemical circuits, so I do wonder if something profound might just be lurking.

Another thing that happened that is hard do describe was when I was washing my hands on one occasion, I had a very strange and fleeting feeling of a withdrawal symptom, incredibly subtle and fleeting, but of the kind one gets when one has stopped using an addictive chemical such as Nicotine.

I recall that Pastor Robert Maasbach of Life Church UK, when he visited our local church and prayed for me, said that I would be freed from all addictions. I was freed from addiction to Nicotine. Are we also being addicted to SLS compounds? Sounds crazy, but I dunno, this is an experiment.

How do the effects of quantum spin liquidity upon the electron fit in with a probability wave theory of matter?

Waves can add up. You get constructive and destructive interference with waves. There is no reason a probability wave should be any different. If the presences (plural) of the (single) electron are crests of the probability wave “poking” into the levels of perception we call reality (let’s simplify and say dimensional planes), there is no reason to suppose that each wave is not the sum of a number of different more fundamental waves – the summary wave is the electron, it’s component waves are the quarks (or other more fundamental building blocks).

If you reduce one of the component waves you get a less “prominent” electron crest. If you change the wavelength of one or more component waves, you get a more spread out, less sharply defined electron (or the noticeable effects of the the electron).

The (summary) probability waves of the electron(“s”) are smeared out because some of the component (“quark level”) waves have longer wavelengths. Instead of pointy crested waves that make nice sharp lines, you get flatter stretched out humps.

I was wanting to avoid using those nasty plastic beads they put in exfoliating face scrubs because they are bad for the environment and are getting into the food chain in a big bad way. I didn’t want to use sand/earth/mud products or ground up nut kernels either, as these are all quite nasty abrasives.

I came up with using a Konjac face sponge, which I bought at Holland and Barratt’s Main Street store here in the UK. You just get it wet and gently work it over your face, no soap required.

Once you have used it, it dries out and shrinks to a tiny hard disk like a sort of cookie until next time you wet it, but that is perfect normal. Follow the directions exactly so you get the best out of this product.

DRY WET

I found the product effective and actually quite fun to use. Also I don’t have to worry about getting exfoliating face scrub stuff with nasty chemicals and beads in my eye.

NOTICE: I have not been paid any money or given any inducements by any product manufacturer or store to mention the products or stores featured in this blog article.